25-1036. Simultaneous proceedings
A. Except as otherwise provided in section 25-1034, a court of this state shall not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this chapter, unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under section 25-1037.
B. Except as otherwise provided in section 25-1034, a court of this state, before hearing a child custody proceeding, shall examine the court documents and other information supplied by the parties pursuant to section 25-1039. If the court determines that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state that has jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this chapter, the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state. If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this chapter does not determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state shall dismiss the proceeding.
C. In a proceeding to modify a child custody determination, a court of this state shall determine whether a proceeding to enforce the determination has been commenced in another state. If a proceeding to enforce a child custody determination has been commenced in another state, the court may do any of the following:
1. Stay the proceeding for modification pending the entry of an order of a court of the other state enforcing, staying, denying or dismissing the proceeding for enforcement.
2. Enjoin the parties from continuing with the proceeding for enforcement.
3. Proceed with the modification under conditions it considers appropriate.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case:
Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 25-1036 provides in pertinent part as follows: [A] court of this State shall not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another…”
Duwyenie v. Moran, 207 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “8 Thus, there is simply no merit to Moran’s assertion that the trial court improperly exercised jurisdiction “after a full year of litigation over the same issues in a foreign court, litigation that was still ongoing, [and] was not .”
In Re the Marriage of Margain & Ruiz-Bours, 372 P.3d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Arizona has its own “Simultaneous proceedings” section to the UCCJEA located at A.R.S. § 25-1036(A). 7 .In Ruiz-Bours's motion contesting the jurisdiction of the Second Family Court, she stated, "I stand by the jurisdiction of the Courts of the City of Hermosillo, Sonora.”
Griffith v. Bennett (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 11× “See A.R.S. § 25-1036(A). But whether the competing court has “jurisdiction substantially in accordance with” the home state designation remains in dispute.”
Monique B./donald B. v. Hon duncan/dcs, 429 P.3d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “”); see also A.R.S. § 25-1036 (generally prohibiting simultaneous child custody proceedings in courts of two different states); accord Ala.”
King v. Bertram (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 25-1036(B) (when a proceeding has been commenced in another state, the court must stay the proceeding and “communicate with the court of the other state”); see also A.”
Tillman v. Smith (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “Under A.R.S. § 25-1036(B), a UCCJEA conference is only mandated when custody proceedings are simultaneously pending in another state.”
Antanelle Duwyenie v. William C. Moran (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “contrary to the specific language of § 25-1036.” ¶13 Because Arizona had home state jurisdiction, the RSTC did not have jurisdiction “‘substantially in conformity with [the UCCJEA].”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1036(A) — 5 cases
Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“A.R.S. § 25-1036 provides in pertinent part as follows: [A] court of this State shall not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another…”
Duwyenie v. Moran, 207 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“8 Thus, there is simply no merit to Moran’s assertion that the trial court improperly exercised jurisdiction “after a full year of litigation over the same issues in a foreign court, litigation that was still ongoing, [and] was not .”
In Re the Marriage of Margain & Ruiz-Bours, 372 P.3d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Arizona has its own “Simultaneous proceedings” section to the UCCJEA located at A.R.S. § 25-1036(A). 7 .In Ruiz-Bours's motion contesting the jurisdiction of the Second Family Court, she stated, "I stand by the jurisdiction of the Courts of the City of Hermosillo, Sonora.”
Antanelle Duwyenie v. William C. Moran (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“contrary to the specific language of § 25-1036.” ¶13 Because Arizona had home state jurisdiction, the RSTC did not have jurisdiction “‘substantially in conformity with [the UCCJEA].”
Griffith v. Bennett (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“See A.R.S. § 25-1036(A). But whether the competing court has “jurisdiction substantially in accordance with” the home state designation remains in dispute.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1036(B) — 3 cases
Griffith v. Bennett (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“See A.R.S. § 25-1036(A). But whether the competing court has “jurisdiction substantially in accordance with” the home state designation remains in dispute.”
King v. Bertram (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“See A.R.S. § 25-1036(B) (when a proceeding has been commenced in another state, the court must stay the proceeding and “communicate with the court of the other state”); see also A.”
Tillman v. Smith (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“Under A.R.S. § 25-1036(B), a UCCJEA conference is only mandated when custody proceedings are simultaneously pending in another state.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.